Basically just curious to see whether people think that Stratagems have been a good addition to 40k overall, or if their inclusion has made the game worse.
Stratagems were a nice inclusion in the game but they quickly went for a Datasheet Ability --> Stratagem approach that made me realize how quickly they lost their initial vision of them being a tactical move/action rather than a way to have a unit be taken only for their stratagems
Yeah, I actually really like stratagems conceptually. There is obviously some frustration inherent in any system if some faction has like a really crazy stratagem, but for the most part, I like having special abilities that are limited by a central limited resource.
I especially like them now that detachments don't buy them and you get 1 each turn, encouraging you to hold on to a pool of 3-4 so you can keep using important stratagems into the later turns.
harlokin wrote: Yes, I'm a big fan of the concept and mechanism.
That said, I hate 'shoot again' type strats that break the action economy.
Eh, the only thing I wish about the "do x again" strats was that they didn't stack with other stratagems. I dislike that so many things are "until the end of the phase" allowing you to get double value for "do x again". I think "do x again" would be much less of a problem if the standard was "on your next attack" for momentary buffs instead of "until the end of the phase."
Personally I feel they were an interesting concept done poorly (par for the course with GW). Originally they seemed cool but they decided to make them a focus of armies, putting a lot of the meat in a faction behind them and taking stuff that used to be actual rules and making them limited use stratagems instead.
There are things that make sense as stratagems and it's not a bad system in theory, but they have taken a lot of things that should have been wargear and unit rules and made them stratagems.
IMO no, a lot of units had special abilities and many of those abilities are now stratagems that a unit had for free but now is a resource and many other units can now share taking the uniqueness away from such units.
Here are a few examples for DE
Eviscerating Fly-by - When a wych unit with fly advances of a unit deal X MW's This one really makes me mad actually. This was once only on the Reavers it was their Bladevanes rules, it was taken away and given to all Wych units with fly and now costs CP as well. Making the 1 unique thing about Reavers non-unique
Crucible of Malediction - In Psychic phase on a 4+ deal D3 MW's to each Psyker within 12", once per game Even in the index the Haemonculus has this on their datasheets, it was a 1 time item for every haemonculus, not only is it once per game regardless how many Haemonculus you have but it is 2CP when it was a free piece of wargear.
Enhanced Aethersails - Do not roll for advance for a Raider instead it advances 8" This was once just a vehicle upgrade, now only 1 can use it and a upgrade is gone.
There are many more in many books (even more in DE like SOul trap, and others etc..), but IMO it didn't make the game better, it just took unit rules. And it also makes learning and fighting against new armies harder b.c its just more rules you have to learn that MANY units can do instead of just 1 unit (or 1 type of unit) can do.
If stratagems was there to change how armies played like the relics, WL trait, bonus Auras, buffs to certain skills, etc.. then i think it woul dbe much better, a system that you the general (The Commander) can do to make your force the style of force you want it to be.
Worse. 40k didn't need ccg style mechanics. They've taken things that should have been unit or faction abilities and turned them into stackable buffs. Then you get into the stuff that throws unit balance out of whack like shoot and fight twice strategems and strategems that break the wounding table. How do you balance units when you never know if they'll be fighting/shooting once or twice? Or weapons that can punch above their weight for 1CP? Or high strength weapons that loyalists can turn into S4 for 2CP?
I don't think so. When 8th first came out I was alright with the core ones and perhaps uinque ones for individual missions. I'd guessed that they'd add more with codex releases (perhaps 3-5) but the sheer amount of them and the sheer power level of some of them I was not ready for.
That said they are fairly easy to largely ignore if you are looking for a casual experience.
They lead to obliterator syndrome, in which units need to be costed accordingly to stand permanently under the effect of them and other effects, making units autopicks for specific kinds of combinations and auto non picks for anyone else.
They were upgrades once, giving the AA missile to the missile launcher baseline would've made it truly a generalist weapon which could've been discussed as merits.
Same with ard boyz beeing once a unit even, etc. THis ties in with obliterator syndrome, making it further more difficult to actually balance an army regardless of PL or pts, since there is no pricetag attached. (same with traits)
These stratagems are not stratagems they are bs and should be treated as such.
They fundamentally alter compatibility with the edition, index vs Codex showed the disparaty nicely,so will 9th edition codex vs 8th ones.
Power disparaty, let's just don't talk around the bush, they are themselves extremely unbalanced. There's no reason fighting double in melee should cost more CP then shooting twice, yet it does. Not to mention that such double fighting stratagems, ones that modify the wounding rolls (which is also partially the issue with the wounding table) and denial tools are pretty much superior to a lot of other stratagems for no apparent reason.
I found it actually brought some decisions and ressource management into the game. While in 6th and 7th you actually, as a player, didn't do much outside of listbuilding and just watched the fireworks, 8th edition brought in actual tactics and stratagems are part of that.
They were also an answer to the formation debacle. In 7th GW put loads of special rules on every unit through formations - then they restarted the game but index 40K was extremely bland, stratagems were a way to include fluffy rules without breaking a faction because they were limited in use. Of course some stratagems were straight up too good as usual for GW and they allowed more and more CP to use which made it actually a bit similar to the formation situation in 7th. But overall it was a very good inclusion imo.
They were good when there were a few of them. These days there are far too many in general, and too many that overload the kill factor of a unit in particular. Keeping track of your own stratagems turns gameplay into exam preparation.
The game would work better and smoother if people would use just the Core Book stratagems imo.
Stratagems as a concept are a lot of fun and add variety. Of course come combos could be overpowered but it's just GW that couldn't (don't want to?) balance things, game mechanics have no fault.
I like stratagems and think they have improved the game.
I also think however that the design is flawed - and GW have moved away from the concept as small tactical flourishes to... just anything really.
A bad unit should be buffed (dare I say "fixed") - it shouldn't get a "use 1 CP to make it 33-50% more effective" bandaid stratagem. Its sloppy design even if I can sort of see why some people might think its cool.
There shouldn't be faction defining stratagems that warp the entire faction around them - and these certainly shouldn't be locked behind certain sub factions. In fact I'd go so far to say sub faction stratagems are definitely bad.
Perhaps weirdly I don't much mind the "this should have been wargear" stratagems - but I see the CPs as a resource that can be spent just like points. The problem, much like points, is when the exchange rates are busted.
No. A little worse. Fiddly interrupts to bog the game down with more rules checking and wording issues weren't a particularly useful thing to add.
A bit overly complicated for the illusion of complexity. And they added so many that the divide between good (worth using) and bad filler for the sake of having more is really transparent.
On the down side, stratagems make the game more complex to play and much more difficult understand, while making it difficult to properly balance units. On the up side, they add a little bit of command and control simulation to the game, and a little bit of decision-making. On balance I think they're a net negative.
As is tradition with GW: Great concept, abysmal execution with massively inconsistent design philosophy.
The idea of a resource-limited number of on-demand support abilities is a cornerstone of many strategy games of various types. In that sense, Statagems aren't an awful idea. However, with 40k, we have several issues.
Stratagems range from insanely powerful capabilities that make or break units/armies to pointlessly trivial. There's far too many Stratagems in general for people to keep track of and remember/execute properly, too many that might as well not exist or are too niche/fiddly to really be of any value or that arbitrarily don't apply to the units that could really use them, and too many that are incredibly powerful or that are fine applied to some units but horrifically broken applied to others and have problems with scaling (e.g. Vengeance for Cadia isn't terribly overpowered applied to a squad of Guardsmen or Stormtroopers, applied to a Shadowsword however it's an entirely different story).
In many instances, GW seems to have removed unique unit, weapon, or army abilities and turned them into Stratagems just for the sake of having more Stratagems.
As a result we end up with a fundamentally decent idea that expressed itself as an inconsistent mess of abilities that cause all sorts of balance headaches, fiddly play problems, and game design issues. They have the potential to make the game better, but as delivered I believe they result in a worse end product.
External resource mechanics to model command and control are a generally sound mechanic that can add a lot to a game.
Stratagems just... don't do that, though. They're more like power-ups or special abilities that have an activation cost, and boost a unit's capabilities beyond what would be implied by the model or statline.
I think I'd like stratagems a lot more with a bit of tweaking:
-More generation per-turn, less up-front. Warmachine uses Focus in a similar way, with it being expended to cast spells or push your units to perform better. The difference with Warmachine is that your warcasters generate Focus each turn, making it a limited but replenishing resource rather than something you can blow on turn 1.
-Fewer extreme force-multipliers. Shoot-twice and fight-twice stratagems are particularly egregious because they make it difficult to balance a very shooty or very stabby unit, see: entire Chaos codex. Beyond that, it's a little frustrating to have units where you are incentivized to take exactly one full-size unit. Not one half-size unit, not two half-size units, not even two full-size units, but exactly one full-size unit to routinely activate a stratagem on.
-More C&C-oriented stratagems, fewer direct combat ones. Things like artillery strikes, rallying bonuses, pre-battle upgrades, and the basic re-roll stratagem to grease the wheels all fit the idea of command points representing the cohesiveness and organization of a fighting force within a greater whole. Stripping out unit abilities to turn them into stratagems makes command points a necessary resource for units to function, rather than something layered on top.
-Just not as many of them. There are way too many to keep track of, even with a 'cheat sheet' pre-made of just the ones that apply to my army. And I don't even play Marines.
I dunno, I voted for a little worse because I feel like a lot of design potential and current units had been gutted of their unique ability in order to inflate the number of stratagems for a faction. Minor example, Lychguard dispersion shields went from 3++ to 4++ (In 7th to 8th) but their unique 'bounce back enemy shots' that was in 5th was brought back as a stratagem as well as buffing them back to 3++.
To which I wonder, why couldn't this have been a once per game datasheet ability? I don't buy the tactical sense of an Overlord deciding whether to spend the last CPs on Lychguard shields or a DDA acting on the top profile. What is really stopping you from doing both besides an arbitrary design feature of the game? It just feels like false complexity/strategy and leads to imo phoned in design: A unit is bad and doesn't perform according to the lore and design niche? Slap a 2CP stratagem to make it good! A unit is nominally bad in all regards but is only good/competitive because of this one, singular exploitative stratagem? Slap a points hike on the unit and call it a day!
To be fair to GW though, they did address some of this with regards to the Rotate Ion Shields issue so give credit where credit is due.
My two cents for redesigning stratagems. I'd like for units that had unique abilities to be returned to them and pointed accordingly for such and leave maybe 5 stratagems, not including the core book, per faction with a bonus 2 for a sub-faction. Simple n easy. If you wanna take it further in matched play add a rule where players could only make a deck of 7 total stratagems from the core book, codexes, supplements etc. Tactical geniuses like Creed can net you a bonus card if you want to play the system a little to represent good commanders. As for the currency of use? I'd just remove CP all together and instead each strat has a number of times it can be used per game.
It's a substitute for having actual game mechanics in the core rules which is a huge failing of the 8th edition base rules. It ends up being something that has to be layered on top of the core rules instead of being fully integrated into the rules. It means that faction stratagems can't really interact with other faction stratagems. It also means that what a stratagem does tends to be limited to mostly mechanics that the core ruleset has which is a relatively limited set of rules.
In terms of how it makes the game feel, it gives off MtG vibes which is personally something I really despise (I got out of MtG to play 40k). It makes me have flash backs of "I'll be attacking with this creature and I'll tap a land to give it +3/+3". It also has issues of limiting how many abilities your units can perform which can feel very arbitrarily. Apparently this Tau cadre has only 1 EMP grenade which I guess a logistics drone has to deliver to a fire warrior team to throw but the other units of fire warriors cannot throw a grenade as there is only 1 logistic drone.
A lot of these tend to just be increases in lethality which isn't exactly compelling gameplay and often cause weird situations due to the d6 system. Pulse rifle spam being a good Knight killer due to stratagems modifying the "to wound" being another wonky example of stratagems feeling too game like.
BaconCatBug wrote: Stratagems pretty much destroyed any semblance of the possibility of balance.
Pretty big statement with no follow up?
Because it's pretty self evident? Especially since the majority of stratagems are "balanced" around the 8th edition way of generating command points. A 1CP Custodes stratagem is orders of magnitude more powerful than a 1CP Imperial Guard stratagem. It also adds a huge amount of complexity, requiring you to keep track of every possible stratagem possibly being used on any unit on the board, as opposed to unit abilities.
Personally, I would remove stratagems and bring back one-time use abilities for units. That way you can actually balance units and keep track of when their super-secret-tech has or hasn't been used.
Also, the huge difference in the effectiveness of some stratagems means some are "use every turn, no thought needed" to "totally and utterly worthless why would I bother ever using this".
Like, why would I spend 2CP to give a single Basilisk re-roll to hit or spend 2CP and reinforcement points to re-spawn a unit or causing a single mortal wound on a 6, when I could instead spend those 2CP on Overlapping Fields of Fire?
Amishprn86 wrote: IMO no, a lot of units had special abilities and many of those abilities are now stratagems that a unit had for free but now is a resource and many other units can now share taking the uniqueness away from such units.
Here are a few examples for DE
Eviscerating Fly-by - When a wych unit with fly advances of a unit deal X MW's This one really makes me mad actually. This was once only on the Reavers it was their Bladevanes rules, it was taken away and given to all Wych units with fly and now costs CP as well. Making the 1 unique thing about Reavers non-unique
Crucible of Malediction - In Psychic phase on a 4+ deal D3 MW's to each Psyker within 12", once per game Even in the index the Haemonculus has this on their datasheets, it was a 1 time item for every haemonculus, not only is it once per game regardless how many Haemonculus you have but it is 2CP when it was a free piece of wargear.
Enhanced Aethersails - Do not roll for advance for a Raider instead it advances 8" This was once just a vehicle upgrade, now only 1 can use it and a upgrade is gone.
There are many more in many books (even more in DE like SOul trap, and others etc..), but IMO it didn't make the game better, it just took unit rules. And it also makes learning and fighting against new armies harder b.c its just more rules you have to learn that MANY units can do instead of just 1 unit (or 1 type of unit) can do.
If stratagems was there to change how armies played like the relics, WL trait, bonus Auras, buffs to certain skills, etc.. then i think it woul dbe much better, a system that you the general (The Commander) can do to make your force the style of force you want it to be.
Understood, but then how do you point those things to keep them from being junk or auto-take? Was there really a choice?
And what of abilities that don't fit an upgrade or special rule?
Should my TS always get +2 to cast or pick spawn abilities?
As is tradition with GW: Great concept, abysmal execution with massively inconsistent design philosophy.
I feel like that could almost be the GW mission statement at this point. Like so many other things, it was a fantastic concept that went horribly, horribly wrong.
I liked the idea of having a few core strats that everyone got in the main book, on or two mission specific ones where appropriate, and then a small handfull for each army in the codex.
Instead, what developed was just so lopsided and odd - Loyalist marines - Here's half a million fantastic strats for everything you could ever possibly need ...
DG: "Hey, what about us?" GW:"Shut up and use your cloud of flies and be grateful you got it!"
I think where they ended up, there are too many over-all, they slow the game way down, too many are dedicated to re-rolls (which further slows the game), and too many armies have only a very small number of useable strats while for other armies, it's an embarrassment of riches ...
My issue is some of the Stratagems just not being army wide or Faction wide. True Grit is the biggest offender here. Not only do even Grey Knights not have access to it, SOMEHOW during the battle only one squad of Grey Hunters said "Hey this is a good idea".
But it also makes it a lot harder to implement in a balanced fashion, and it has created some armies which basically have no uses for their CP (Eldar have gak stratagems outside of a couple) or some armies which literally chug them as fast as humanly possible (ex: Custodes) because they are incredible.
I think they also haven't learned how to price some of them properly. You'd be hard pressed to convince me Chapter Master is costed as much as hit on 5s for Orks, but here we are.
I don't know how the game was before stratagem were intreduced, so it is impossible for me to say, if they made the game worse.
What I do know though, that in many cases they are a sudo system, that should be covered by points. Having a chapter master, better ammo, having relics or being a veteran should cost points per thing, and not some currancy which was, and probably still is, impossible to balance.
My main objection is how much of a gotcha they can be - you can't possibly explain everything you can do and it is so easy to surprise an opponent with one of these.
Also some are blatantly too good (Veterans! Shoot twice ones) and have broad usage whilst others don''t. Better a small handful than s many.
Conceptually they're good in the sense that it allows the room for design for reactive counter play (which is exactly what a IGOUGO system needs). It is also good that it curtails the abuse of certain tricks/mechanics by making them 'once per turn'.
In reality, they're bad because now everything revolves around handful of overly powerful stratagems with a list built around it.
They made the game as a whole significantly better, but there are definite stumbles in the execution. There's way too many strategems in general and too many tied to specific units that would be better if they were abilities on the datasheets activated with command points. They are VERY good for the game, but need some significant editing.
Daedalus81 wrote: Understood, but then how do you point those things to keep them from being junk or auto-take? Was there really a choice?
Is it conceptually any different from any other vehicle or weapon upgrade?
I mean, track guards could be represented as a 1CP ability to move at full speed for a turn, but instead it's a wargear option that is priced right where it's neither junk nor an auto-take, but something to really think about.
A lot of the stratagems that unlock capabilities seem to me like they could be similarly represented as upgrades. Maybe your TS shouldn't all be able to cast at +2 all the time, but spending points to upgrade a squad to cast at +2 would seem reasonable to me.
Amishprn86 wrote: IMO no, a lot of units had special abilities and many of those abilities are now stratagems that a unit had for free but now is a resource and many other units can now share taking the uniqueness away from such units.
Here are a few examples for DE
Eviscerating Fly-by - When a wych unit with fly advances of a unit deal X MW's This one really makes me mad actually. This was once only on the Reavers it was their Bladevanes rules, it was taken away and given to all Wych units with fly and now costs CP as well. Making the 1 unique thing about Reavers non-unique
Crucible of Malediction - In Psychic phase on a 4+ deal D3 MW's to each Psyker within 12", once per game Even in the index the Haemonculus has this on their datasheets, it was a 1 time item for every haemonculus, not only is it once per game regardless how many Haemonculus you have but it is 2CP when it was a free piece of wargear.
Enhanced Aethersails - Do not roll for advance for a Raider instead it advances 8" This was once just a vehicle upgrade, now only 1 can use it and a upgrade is gone.
There are many more in many books (even more in DE like SOul trap, and others etc..), but IMO it didn't make the game better, it just took unit rules. And it also makes learning and fighting against new armies harder b.c its just more rules you have to learn that MANY units can do instead of just 1 unit (or 1 type of unit) can do.
If stratagems was there to change how armies played like the relics, WL trait, bonus Auras, buffs to certain skills, etc.. then i think it woul dbe much better, a system that you the general (The Commander) can do to make your force the style of force you want it to be.
Understood, but then how do you point those things to keep them from being junk or auto-take? Was there really a choice?
And what of abilities that don't fit an upgrade or special rule?
Should my TS always get +2 to cast or pick spawn abilities?
This seems a bit of a strawman, if you'll forgive me saying so.
Amishprn86 had specifically brought up wargear being turned into stratagems. What wargear gave the entire TS army +2 to cast?
As for pointing the things Amishprn86 brought up, yes, it's absolutely possible. Far easier, I would argue, than trying to both point them as stratagems and point the units which might or might not be benefiting from them on any given turn.
Hell, Bladevanes were literally a standard part of Reavers. So costing them would just be a matter of costing Reavers based on them having that ability as standard.
As for the actual (previously) purchasable wargear, Crucible of Malediction managed to not be an auto-take in 5th, so I'm going to assume that that's possible to cost reasonably. Soul Trap should be pretty easy, especially given that it was much better with some builds than others (it increased strength - which was a lot more useful to Huskblade Archons than to Venom Blade or Agoniser Archons). And Enhanced Aethersails just seems like a cheap upgrade that you might or might not purchase, depending on your needs (specifically, Assault craft will probably want it, whilst gunboats will likely not bother).
Further, I'll add that for character wargear, I'd rather that it be slightly overcosted than nonexistant. That way, the competitive players are still free to ignore it but those of us trying to build characters around a specific theme aren't stuck choosing from an almost nonexistent selection of wargear.
I really like Stratagems as a concept, and just feel that they need to be better aimed. A few too many things in the game got moved to Stratagems that shouldn't be.
#1 - Things that represent a unit's major identity - should not be a stratagem: If a unit just can't do something it's really known for, then it shouldn't be a stratagem. For example, Necron characters resurrecting. This should not be a stratagem. The ability for these guys to potentially get back up should not be dependent on whether someone else that turn already tried to come back or not, nor should it depend on whether they have enough strategic resources available. This really should be part of every Necron character's datasheet. If they want to limit it, limit it within the ability to once/game, rather than with stratagems. This stands separately from, say, Helbrutes, which have an ability on their datasheet already, but then have a stratagem that just gives you that bonus without needing to work for it (Helbrutes have a chance to shoot when injured, but can use a stratagem to just shoot a second time anyways).
#2 - Things that represent a very impactful piece of equipment - should not be a stratagem: Honestly, this has more to do with the fact that this seems like they don't know which way to go. Why is a Haywire Grenade a stratagem, when a Meltabomb isn't? Why are there both stratagems AND upgrades for Hunter Kill Missiles? Unless a piece of equipment is just SO esoteric that no one would ever bother adding it to a list, it should be a piece of equipment you purchase, and not one that you spend command points on. Again, this should be like the above Helbrute example; if it's something it already does, but there's a super-special something for a super-niche case, that should be a stratagem.
#3 - Things that make a unit better pre-game - should not be a stratagem: Seriously, why is a Chapter Master worth CP and not points? Why is this Dreadnaught the "legendary" Dreadnaught? I'm picking on Space Marines here because they are the worst offenders here, but many other factions do this too (Harlequins, GSC, Astra Militarum, etc.). These don't have to be their own separate datasheets, but they should cost some extra points. Hive Tyrants and Daemon Princes have options in their datasheet to add wings and gain keywords at the cost of additional points AND power; why shouldn't a Chapter Master be the same?
So everything else; extra unique deployments (ie; Ravenguard sneakiness), units that push "a little bit further" (ie; Fight Again), challenging and potent abilities that would require significant resources (ie; Orbital Bombardment) super unique situations that shouldn't exist on a datasheet ("when a C'tan is attacked by a C'tan phase blade..." - and these should cost 0CP), army-wide ability that to make up for something (ie; Prepared Positions), etc - those things should be stratagems. It'd be a really cool thing to eject the decaying plasma cores of a Plasma Cannon and throw them at your enemy and you can't use the plasma weapons for the rest of the game (1CP cost). It wouldn't be a really cool thing if you had to specially train unit to eject the decaying plasma cores of their Combi-Plasmas, throw them at their enemy, but then keep shooting those weapons for the rest of the game (1CP cost).
Yarium wrote: I really like Stratagems as a concept, and just feel that they need to be better aimed. A few too many things in the game got moved to Stratagems that shouldn't be.
#1 - Things that represent a unit's major identity - should not be a stratagem: If a unit just can't do something it's really known for, then it shouldn't be a stratagem. For example, Necron characters resurrecting. This should not be a stratagem. The ability for these guys to potentially get back up should not be dependent on whether someone else that turn already tried to come back or not, nor should it depend on whether they have enough strategic resources available. This really should be part of every Necron character's datasheet. If they want to limit it, limit it within the ability to once/game, rather than with stratagems. This stands separately from, say, Helbrutes, which have an ability on their datasheet already, but then have a stratagem that just gives you that bonus without needing to work for it (Helbrutes have a chance to shoot when injured, but can use a stratagem to just shoot a second time anyways).
#2 - Things that represent a very impactful piece of equipment - should not be a stratagem: Honestly, this has more to do with the fact that this seems like they don't know which way to go. Why is a Haywire Grenade a stratagem, when a Meltabomb isn't? Why are there both stratagems AND upgrades for Hunter Kill Missiles? Unless a piece of equipment is just SO esoteric that no one would ever bother adding it to a list, it should be a piece of equipment you purchase, and not one that you spend command points on. Again, this should be like the above Helbrute example; if it's something it already does, but there's a super-special something for a super-niche case, that should be a stratagem.
#3 - Things that make a unit better pre-game - should not be a stratagem: Seriously, why is a Chapter Master worth CP and not points? Why is this Dreadnaught the "legendary" Dreadnaught? I'm picking on Space Marines here because they are the worst offenders here, but many other factions do this too (Harlequins, GSC, Astra Militarum, etc.). These don't have to be their own separate datasheets, but they should cost some extra points. Hive Tyrants and Daemon Princes have options in their datasheet to add wings and gain keywords at the cost of additional points AND power; why shouldn't a Chapter Master be the same?
So everything else; extra unique deployments (ie; Ravenguard sneakiness), units that push "a little bit further" (ie; Fight Again), challenging and potent abilities that would require significant resources (ie; Orbital Bombardment) super unique situations that shouldn't exist on a datasheet ("when a C'tan is attacked by a C'tan phase blade..." - and these should cost 0CP), army-wide ability that to make up for something (ie; Prepared Positions), etc - those things should be stratagems. It'd be a really cool thing to eject the decaying plasma cores of a Plasma Cannon and throw them at your enemy and you can't use the plasma weapons for the rest of the game (1CP cost). It wouldn't be a really cool thing if you had to specially train unit to eject the decaying plasma cores of their Combi-Plasmas, throw them at their enemy, but then keep shooting those weapons for the rest of the game (1CP cost).
I like the ones that apply to every army. I think all the others should be burned in a fire on the altar of game balance.
It’s impossible to balance a unit if you can’t even guess at whether it will get hugely value improving stratagems or not. And some factions have awesome ones while others have garbage.
Intercessors rapid fire stratagem compared to the rubric shoots twice stratagem.
Rapid fire - max effect is + 20 shots can cost 2 CP.
Rubrics strata is max + 40 shots and costs 1 CP.
The rubrics stratagem is 4x more efficient per command point.
How could a system intending to be balanced have such gross inequity?
The concept is fine, the execution is terrible, especially the move in the most recent PA books to give every unit a special stratagem of its own, instead of just having it as a base rule.
Stratagems should be generally usable stuff - restricting something to just INFANTRY or whatever is fine, but the Daemon PA book where literally every unit gets its own (usually deeply mediocre) stratagem is a massive step in the wrong direction.
Intercessors rapid fire stratagem compared to the rubric shoots twice stratagem.
Rapid fire - max effect is + 20 shots can cost 2 CP.
Rubrics strata is max + 40 shots and costs 1 CP.
The rubrics stratagem is 4x more efficient per command point.
How could a system intending to be balanced have such gross inequity?
Honestly not sure if this is a joke or not. The strats aren't remotely the same. The rubric one can only be used if you didn't move, which is a massive limitation. Also not to nitpick but the aspiring sorceror doesn't have a boltgun so doesn't get any benefit from the strat, so it isn't a max +40 shots, it's a max +38, even putting aside how niche a block of 20 rubrics now is.
In the current execution, worse.They feel like arcade power ups and the implementation is very arbitrary.
Some units may shoot twice, but only those...why?
They are restricted to 1 unit per turn, regardless of cost...why?
They make units behave in abnormal ways (e.g. all of a sudden your bolter deals mortal wounds), which breaks internal coherence for me.
In my book, command points should be command related abilities like guard orders, and the limitation should be modeled similarly to what we observe for orders. At most, I think it would be OK to add CP bought upgrades pre-battle, since that is just customization (but honestly, this probably would be handled better with point values).
Straragems as a concept are a great idea. GW just implemented it badly by doing stuff like converting unit special rules into them or using them as band-aids to fix crap units (looking at you Tyranids PA)
By far worse. Many units are only worth taking because of XYZ stratagem they gain access to, as well as previously mentioned the "shoot again" type stratagem completely break the game with multiplicitave effects on buffs etc
vipoid wrote: Basically just curious to see whether people think that Stratagems have been a good addition to 40k overall, or if their inclusion has made the game worse.
I think 40k is better without them, with the exception of pregame stratagems. Stratagems added this layer of "hold on a sec I think I have a thing" to the game. But the pregame ones like Vet intercessors are 1 and done which I prefer. There's a better pace
I don't mind the idea of them. It might even be a good idea.
That said, the implementation needs work, in the vein of "not all are created equal". They've created so many hideously unbalancing situations, especially combined with relics, warlord traits, subfaction traits, and now super doctrines that you don't pay for in the unit cost and all of which stack. Especially when they've returned to the 7e business model of selling books that should ostensibly be for narrative gamers by making them full of these aforementioned free stacking rules that critically break the game so that everybody else also buys them.
In fact, opinion, all of those things listed shouldn't be in the game or should be restricted to Narrative Play Only. Forging the Narrative doesn't require a bunch of random free stacking special rules that critically break balance.
[Doctrines, Rites, etc. themselves are probably okay because they're universal and you know what units they apply to and can price them appropriately.]
Almost all stratagems make no sense from a background perspective - Space Marines only have transhuman physiology sometimes? ...when they're ordered to..? - Cusodes don't have tanglefoot grenades until they're ordered to throw them, and then they fade out of existence again?
Most stratagems are garbage, so you only ever see a couple from any given book used; because GW has no idea how to balance a seesaw, let alone 40K.
Where do Command Points come from anyway? Why does having the overall commander of your Space Marine Chapter cost you command?
Strats are one of the worst things to happen to 40k....ever(well besides the Tau). CCG crap should stay with morons. They only serve to wombocombo gotcha and that just feels lame.
Either pay points for something or have it baked into the datasheet.
While stratagems basically mean the gameis unbalanceable, i find that they give a lot of flavor to armies.
All the night lords stratagem make sense and give the army a better representation of how they work than just the legion trait.
So for me its a positive and a negative at the same time.
I'd say the more casual you go, the more stratagems improved the game.
Automatically Appended Next Post: While stratagems basically mean the gameis unbalanceable, i find that they give a lot of flavor to armies.
All the night lords stratagem make sense and give the army a better representation of how they work than just the legion trait.
So for me its a positive and a negative at the same time.
I'd say the more casual you go, the more stratagems improved the game.
Edit :
The unit upgrade stratagems need to go and be replaces by a pts cost instead. The best stratagems imo are the ones that add flavor : Vox scream, Phantasm, We have come for you, cloud of flies, etc. are all stratagems that i find would be hard to put on a datasheet.
I think a lot of stratagems could do just as well if they were rules, and I think they just add another currency (cp) to the game that has to be juggled, and it did get abused by some armies (namely hordes) in 8th, and in universe they don't make too much sense, like why would a mob of warbikers only do a drive by a when a stratagem is played, and not whenever they get the chance, like they would realistically do, but I do think that they have added a little more strategic depth to the game, but all in all, i'd rather go without them. Oh, and a lot of people are talking about how they add flavor to the game, but almost any stratagem could go as a rule with maybe a few tweaks and I think it would also give flavor to the armies, although some stratagems (like green tide I believe it's called) aren't that easy to make into rules. But I am a relatively new player who's only real experience with older editions is what I have heard or read, so I'm not an expert (duh).
I don't care for them, it was better when rules were tied to characters like swarmlord or ig officers. It's also pathetic as a resource management system compared to focus/fury, if you want to make command points a part of the game at least go all the way.
#1 - Things that represent a unit's major identity - should not be a stratagem: If a unit just can't do something it's really known for, then it shouldn't be a stratagem. For example, Necron characters resurrecting. This should not be a stratagem. The ability for these guys to potentially get back up should not be dependent on whether someone else that turn already tried to come back or not, nor should it depend on whether they have enough strategic resources available. This really should be part of every Necron character's datasheet. If they want to limit it, limit it within the ability to once/game, rather than with stratagems. This stands separately from, say, Helbrutes, which have an ability on their datasheet already, but then have a stratagem that just gives you that bonus without needing to work for it (Helbrutes have a chance to shoot when injured, but can use a stratagem to just shoot a second time anyways).
So a possible consequence is that all Necron characters more expensive by way of giving them innate resurrect whether or not they die. This has a knock on effect in balancing the rest of the book. What could happen if you did that? Would certain characters become the most popular, because they'll directly get use from it?
Is it impossible? No, but constraint is a tool for balance.
- Rule of 3
- Tactical restraint
- Smite increasing cost and once per caster
- No AIRCRAFT holding objectives
etc
We probably all agree that these are reasonable rules. There are things that are either rare or tend to have a cinematic or dramatic effect on the game. Things like double tap shouldn't be paired with other strats and should be costed in accordance with the size of the unit. GW has done some of this already. Why there is inequity I do not know - it may be they feel like CSM/TS needs the help at the moment?
#2 - Things that represent a very impactful piece of equipment - should not be a stratagem:
Honestly, this has more to do with the fact that this seems like they don't know which way to go. Why is a Haywire Grenade a stratagem, when a Meltabomb isn't? Why are there both stratagems AND upgrades for Hunter Kill Missiles? Unless a piece of equipment is just SO esoteric that no one would ever bother adding it to a list, it should be a piece of equipment you purchase, and not one that you spend command points on. Again, this should be like the above Helbrute example; if it's something it already does, but there's a super-special something for a super-niche case, that should be a stratagem.
Haywire Grenade does 1.7 to a Knight. Melta bomb does 1.2 with a lot more chance for failure and is not available on characters. Maybe that's a distinction not worth a difference? I don't know. Additionally if the haywire grenade was stock then what is the point of a fusion pistol?
#3 - Things that make a unit better pre-game - should not be a stratagem:
Seriously, why is a Chapter Master worth CP and not points? Why is this Dreadnaught the "legendary" Dreadnaught? I'm picking on Space Marines here because they are the worst offenders here, but many other factions do this too (Harlequins, GSC, Astra Militarum, etc.). These don't have to be their own separate datasheets, but they should cost some extra points. Hive Tyrants and Daemon Princes have options in their datasheet to add wings and gain keywords at the cost of additional points AND power; why shouldn't a Chapter Master be the same?
If a CM cost points then what is the correct points for that? When would anyone NOT take a CM? What is the additional cost for full rerolls and is that cost truly enough for that it provides rerolls to? Isn't a much more limited resource a better place for such an ability? At present you can get a CM for points through named characters, but then you're forced to their army trait.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Racerguy180 wrote: Strats are one of the worst things to happen to 40k....ever(well besides the Tau). CCG crap should stay with morons. They only serve to wombocombo gotcha and that just feels lame.
Either pay points for something or have it baked into the datasheet.
I agree that wombocombo is stupid. I don't agree that there is no value to the idea of stratagems.
An awful, awful thing in the game. Far too much bookkeeping, far too gimmicky and far too open to abuse.
They ruin so much verisimilitude and make fighting armies a total mystery sometimes, too much of "F'nar! You've activated my trap card!" going on with 40k now. 8th is the first edition of 40k (granted I say out 6th and 7th...) where most of the time I genuinely have no clue what the feth is going on and have no general grasp of what an army can do just by looking at it, when in previous editions you could; and stratagems are totally to blame there. You just cannot keep up.
I think that on the whole they make the game better. They are a centralised command resource that needs to be managed carefully and introduce some very important decision making which for me make the game far more interesting. They also add some much much needed flavour to many niche factions so that they aren't just another chapter/legion/hive fleet
However some (most after PA) are just awful. Where a unit must be balanced because of an OP stratagem, it should be the stratagem removed, not the unit balanced. Chaos are the worst offenders here imo- Flat shoot twice, flat +1 to wound, plus all the other stupid tricks they have.
Yarium wrote: I really like Stratagems as a concept, and just feel that they need to be better aimed. A few too many things in the game got moved to Stratagems that shouldn't be.
#1 - Things that represent a unit's major identity - should not be a stratagem: If a unit just can't do something it's really known for, then it shouldn't be a stratagem. For example, Necron characters resurrecting. This should not be a stratagem. The ability for these guys to potentially get back up should not be dependent on whether someone else that turn already tried to come back or not, nor should it depend on whether they have enough strategic resources available. This really should be part of every Necron character's datasheet. If they want to limit it, limit it within the ability to once/game, rather than with stratagems. This stands separately from, say, Helbrutes, which have an ability on their datasheet already, but then have a stratagem that just gives you that bonus without needing to work for it (Helbrutes have a chance to shoot when injured, but can use a stratagem to just shoot a second time anyways).
#2 - Things that represent a very impactful piece of equipment - should not be a stratagem: Honestly, this has more to do with the fact that this seems like they don't know which way to go. Why is a Haywire Grenade a stratagem, when a Meltabomb isn't? Why are there both stratagems AND upgrades for Hunter Kill Missiles? Unless a piece of equipment is just SO esoteric that no one would ever bother adding it to a list, it should be a piece of equipment you purchase, and not one that you spend command points on. Again, this should be like the above Helbrute example; if it's something it already does, but there's a super-special something for a super-niche case, that should be a stratagem.
#3 - Things that make a unit better pre-game - should not be a stratagem: Seriously, why is a Chapter Master worth CP and not points? Why is this Dreadnaught the "legendary" Dreadnaught? I'm picking on Space Marines here because they are the worst offenders here, but many other factions do this too (Harlequins, GSC, Astra Militarum, etc.). These don't have to be their own separate datasheets, but they should cost some extra points. Hive Tyrants and Daemon Princes have options in their datasheet to add wings and gain keywords at the cost of additional points AND power; why shouldn't a Chapter Master be the same?
So everything else; extra unique deployments (ie; Ravenguard sneakiness), units that push "a little bit further" (ie; Fight Again), challenging and potent abilities that would require significant resources (ie; Orbital Bombardment) super unique situations that shouldn't exist on a datasheet ("when a C'tan is attacked by a C'tan phase blade..." - and these should cost 0CP), army-wide ability that to make up for something (ie; Prepared Positions), etc - those things should be stratagems. It'd be a really cool thing to eject the decaying plasma cores of a Plasma Cannon and throw them at your enemy and you can't use the plasma weapons for the rest of the game (1CP cost). It wouldn't be a really cool thing if you had to specially train unit to eject the decaying plasma cores of their Combi-Plasmas, throw them at their enemy, but then keep shooting those weapons for the rest of the game (1CP cost).
I agree that a units identity should never be a stratagem. That e.g Hammer of Wrath on many units got removed in favour of stratagems takes away from their character.
I also agree that wargear stratagems should be points upgrades before the battle, however I fear that here some wargear would become autoincludes, and some would get left untouched. For the example of haywire grenades, I prefer it being a flavourful trick that the units can use if needs be- were it wargear, it would not only overcost and punish the basic units if they were to take them and not use them, it would mean that the points would often go to waste as your opponent now knows only certain units can use it.
Admittedly, this is somewhat stupid as CP is framed as a command resource. 'the unit is commanded to use a piece of wargear they can't usually use' doesn't make much sense- however I prefer it to being a units innate ability. It adds flavourful tricks to factions.
And on unit upgrades for CP, I agree with you completely. Upgrades like Chapter Master- where you spend CP to make a unit something different- should be moved to a points upgrade that can only be used on one captain, or a seperate datasheet. Again though I fear that some datasheets/upgrades would become clearly more efficient than the other choices (like demon princes with wings). However, unit upgrades like Victor Of The Blood Games or the marine 'take two WL traits on this character' which add something to a unit that is neither wargear or make it something different are fine and should stay where they are.
Stratagems are quickly going down the road of bloat in 7th where there are far too many to keep track of and make the game horribly unbalanced. I hope that there is a major errata/reform soon to improve how they work across all armies
I like most of them, but there are a few which are decidedly rubbish and immersion breaking.
I like stratagems like boarding actions for orks, and I like the pre-game ones like loading into the tellyporta - tactical maneuvers transcribed into the game.
I dislike stratagems like shoot twice (hey, what if we stop pausing every few minutes to let them run towards us?), and definitely dislike the "dying model can shoot or fight before being removed" ones. They are all far too "nuh-uh!" for my liking.
Amishprn86 wrote: IMO no, a lot of units had special abilities and many of those abilities are now stratagems that a unit had for free but now is a resource and many other units can now share taking the uniqueness away from such units.
Here are a few examples for DE
Eviscerating Fly-by - When a wych unit with fly advances of a unit deal X MW's This one really makes me mad actually. This was once only on the Reavers it was their Bladevanes rules, it was taken away and given to all Wych units with fly and now costs CP as well. Making the 1 unique thing about Reavers non-unique
Crucible of Malediction - In Psychic phase on a 4+ deal D3 MW's to each Psyker within 12", once per game Even in the index the Haemonculus has this on their datasheets, it was a 1 time item for every haemonculus, not only is it once per game regardless how many Haemonculus you have but it is 2CP when it was a free piece of wargear.
Enhanced Aethersails - Do not roll for advance for a Raider instead it advances 8" This was once just a vehicle upgrade, now only 1 can use it and a upgrade is gone.
There are many more in many books (even more in DE like SOul trap, and others etc..), but IMO it didn't make the game better, it just took unit rules. And it also makes learning and fighting against new armies harder b.c its just more rules you have to learn that MANY units can do instead of just 1 unit (or 1 type of unit) can do.
If stratagems was there to change how armies played like the relics, WL trait, bonus Auras, buffs to certain skills, etc.. then i think it woul dbe much better, a system that you the general (The Commander) can do to make your force the style of force you want it to be.
Understood, but then how do you point those things to keep them from being junk or auto-take? Was there really a choice?
And what of abilities that don't fit an upgrade or special rule?
Should my TS always get +2 to cast or pick spawn abilities?
This seems a bit of a strawman, if you'll forgive me saying so.
Amishprn86 had specifically brought up wargear being turned into stratagems. What wargear gave the entire TS army +2 to cast?
As for pointing the things Amishprn86 brought up, yes, it's absolutely possible. Far easier, I would argue, than trying to both point them as stratagems and point the units which might or might not be benefiting from them on any given turn.
Hell, Bladevanes were literally a standard part of Reavers. So costing them would just be a matter of costing Reavers based on them having that ability as standard.
As for the actual (previously) purchasable wargear, Crucible of Malediction managed to not be an auto-take in 5th, so I'm going to assume that that's possible to cost reasonably. Soul Trap should be pretty easy, especially given that it was much better with some builds than others (it increased strength - which was a lot more useful to Huskblade Archons than to Venom Blade or Agoniser Archons). And Enhanced Aethersails just seems like a cheap upgrade that you might or might not purchase, depending on your needs (specifically, Assault craft will probably want it, whilst gunboats will likely not bother).
Further, I'll add that for character wargear, I'd rather that it be slightly overcosted than nonexistant. That way, the competitive players are still free to ignore it but those of us trying to build characters around a specific theme aren't stuck choosing from an almost nonexistent selection of wargear.
#1 - Things that represent a unit's major identity - should not be a stratagem: If a unit just can't do something it's really known for, then it shouldn't be a stratagem. For example, Necron characters resurrecting. This should not be a stratagem. The ability for these guys to potentially get back up should not be dependent on whether someone else that turn already tried to come back or not, nor should it depend on whether they have enough strategic resources available. This really should be part of every Necron character's datasheet. If they want to limit it, limit it within the ability to once/game, rather than with stratagems. This stands separately from, say, Helbrutes, which have an ability on their datasheet already, but then have a stratagem that just gives you that bonus without needing to work for it (Helbrutes have a chance to shoot when injured, but can use a stratagem to just shoot a second time anyways).
So a possible consequence is that all Necron characters more expensive by way of giving them innate resurrect whether or not they die. This has a knock on effect in balancing the rest of the book. What could happen if you did that? Would certain characters become the most popular, because they'll directly get use from it?
Is it impossible? No, but constraint is a tool for balance.
- Rule of 3
- Tactical restraint
- Smite increasing cost and once per caster
- No AIRCRAFT holding objectives
etc
We probably all agree that these are reasonable rules. There are things that are either rare or tend to have a cinematic or dramatic effect on the game. Things like double tap shouldn't be paired with other strats and should be costed in accordance with the size of the unit. GW has done some of this already. Why there is inequity I do not know - it may be they feel like CSM/TS needs the help at the moment?
#2 - Things that represent a very impactful piece of equipment - should not be a stratagem:
Honestly, this has more to do with the fact that this seems like they don't know which way to go. Why is a Haywire Grenade a stratagem, when a Meltabomb isn't? Why are there both stratagems AND upgrades for Hunter Kill Missiles? Unless a piece of equipment is just SO esoteric that no one would ever bother adding it to a list, it should be a piece of equipment you purchase, and not one that you spend command points on. Again, this should be like the above Helbrute example; if it's something it already does, but there's a super-special something for a super-niche case, that should be a stratagem.
Haywire Grenade does 1.7 to a Knight. Melta bomb does 1.2 with a lot more chance for failure and is not available on characters. Maybe that's a distinction not worth a difference? I don't know. Additionally if the haywire grenade was stock then what is the point of a fusion pistol?
#3 - Things that make a unit better pre-game - should not be a stratagem:
Seriously, why is a Chapter Master worth CP and not points? Why is this Dreadnaught the "legendary" Dreadnaught? I'm picking on Space Marines here because they are the worst offenders here, but many other factions do this too (Harlequins, GSC, Astra Militarum, etc.). These don't have to be their own separate datasheets, but they should cost some extra points. Hive Tyrants and Daemon Princes have options in their datasheet to add wings and gain keywords at the cost of additional points AND power; why shouldn't a Chapter Master be the same?
If a CM cost points then what is the correct points for that? When would anyone NOT take a CM? What is the additional cost for full rerolls and is that cost truly enough for that it provides rerolls to? Isn't a much more limited resource a better place for such an ability? At present you can get a CM for points through named characters, but then you're forced to their army trait.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Racerguy180 wrote: Strats are one of the worst things to happen to 40k....ever(well besides the Tau). CCG crap should stay with morons. They only serve to wombocombo gotcha and that just feels lame.
Either pay points for something or have it baked into the datasheet.
I agree that wombocombo is stupid. I don't agree that there is no value to the idea of stratagems.
Who, when playing competitively as Marines, does NOT take a Chapter Master?
CP upgrades to a unit are fine but they're clearly not equal. For example, Great Harlequin or whatever it's called should have something in addition to the Reroll 1s to Hit if it's gonna cost two CP.
I like stratagems as a concept, they add some depth and strategy to the game - but they need to be revamped: There are simply too many of them, and some are no-brainer to use as often as possible, while some are utterly useless and will never get used.
A codex doesn't need 4+ pages of stratagems, and every unit doesn't need it's own unique stratagem.
In the "nice idea, poor execution" camp. Interesting reactions and a useful resource outside of army comp are great. But I feel like 8th more than any edition I can remember was about rules bloat through pseudo-errata scattered in other books as special rules/stratagems.
Some interesting points made in this thread. One of the more interesting ones for me is the point that they can provide an opportunity for counter-play within the IGOUGO system, so I think that's a solid point in their favor.
How would you all feel if we did this:
1. Everyone has access to the same core strats in the BRB 2. Strats that currently should just be unit abilities get removed so that the relevant units can just have the ability again
3. You have x number of strategem slots and the strats you want to use in the game must be selected pre-game
IDK - maybe step 3 doesn't work, but I do feel like most competitive players kind of already do that, and for the more casual games it would cut down on the players of certain books endlessly paging through their codexes to "see if they have something for that" ...
Tycho wrote: Some interesting points made in this thread. One of the more interesting ones for me is the point that they can provide an opportunity for counter-play within the IGOUGO system, so I think that's a solid point in their favor.
How would you all feel if we did this:
1. Everyone has access to the same core strats in the BRB 2. Strats that currently should just be unit abilities get removed so that the relevant units can just have the ability again
3. You have x number of strategem slots and the strats you want to use in the game must be selected pre-game
IDK - maybe step 3 doesn't work, but I do feel like most competitive players kind of already do that, and for the more casual games it would cut down on the players of certain books endlessly paging through their codexes to "see if they have something for that" ...
I would call that an improvement, but #3 would definitely be pretty predictable, given the wild variety in stratagem usefulness.
My main concern would be that it could cause issues with armies/units that depend on stratagems to be useful, and further push towards one-trick-pony builds. For example, Tyranids rely on stratagems a lot more than Guard do; if as a Tyranid player I had to spend all my stratagem slots on the essential ones for melee, then I'd be incentivized to go all-in on melee and forgo shooting. Although I suppose since the CP needs to be spent anyways, there's already an element of that present in the game; banking on fight-twice every turn doesn't leave a ton of CP for other stuff.
Still, a limited roster of stratagems would certainly reduce the amount of page-flipping and bloat that currently goes into them.
#1 - Things that represent a unit's major identity - should not be a stratagem: If a unit just can't do something it's really known for, then it shouldn't be a stratagem. For example, Necron characters resurrecting. This should not be a stratagem. The ability for these guys to potentially get back up should not be dependent on whether someone else that turn already tried to come back or not, nor should it depend on whether they have enough strategic resources available. This really should be part of every Necron character's datasheet. If they want to limit it, limit it within the ability to once/game, rather than with stratagems. This stands separately from, say, Helbrutes, which have an ability on their datasheet already, but then have a stratagem that just gives you that bonus without needing to work for it (Helbrutes have a chance to shoot when injured, but can use a stratagem to just shoot a second time anyways).
So a possible consequence is that all Necron characters more expensive by way of giving them innate resurrect whether or not they die. This has a knock on effect in balancing the rest of the book. What could happen if you did that? Would certain characters become the most popular, because they'll directly get use from it?
Gonna nitpick on this a bit as a Necron player and say isn't that what points are for anyway? To balance abilities like these? I mean I've payed money for a faction that's entire theme is to get back up when they die, and then payed points to use characters in said faction (who are repeatedly slated to have THE BEST bodies of the entire race) but they don't actually get back up when they die, at least not unless I use an arbitrary currency to do so and forgone giving another unit +1 Str for example. At the risk of a bit of hyperbole, there's no reason for factions to lose their thematic identity once you've run out of CP. That's a terrible crutch that doesn't belong in the game.
Finally on points at the very least GW has implemented yearly CA for points fixes. While it'd rustle some jimmies if they don't get points right first time, if you have a yearly patch for these kinda things then you might as well use it.
I would call that an improvement, but #3 would definitely be pretty predictable, given the wild variety in stratagem usefulness.
That was kind of my thought as well. Maybe the real solution is to just trim the fat at the design stage and call it a day. When was the last (or first for that matter) time you saw someone bring 3 Predators for "Kill Shot", or saw someone use the Boon table from the Chaos book. We could probably just cut the bad ones, change the ones that should just be natural unit abilities back into abilities and call it a day. lol
It'd require rebuilding the stratagem system from the ground up, but I do think it might have been smarter to limit stratagems to once per phase period, not just once per phase per stratagem.
yukishiro1 wrote: It'd require rebuilding the stratagem system from the ground up, but I do think it might have been smarter to limit stratagems to once per phase period, not just once per phase per stratagem.
JNAProductions wrote: Who, when playing competitively as Marines, does NOT take a Chapter Master?
For 2 CP, it's basically an auto-take.
Someone who wants to cram aggressors down your throat as Salamanders and would rather have the room for extra stand still and +1 to wound (yes, combo wombo). Salamanders in general right now (it will change) can captain reroll 1s and trait reroll a 2 and not be far off of a CM's ability.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
DarknessEternal wrote: Too many stratagems took the approach of "thing this unit/army used to have permanent access to now has limited access to."
Inferno Bolts.
Let's say I want to pay 1CP to make the combi-bolters on a rhino Inferno. Used to be meh, but with shooting into combat its a little less so. If I otherwise had to pay perhaps 3 to 4 points each for this what is to stop me from wanting to max slots for transports? 83 points would get me 4/8 S4 AP2 shots and 5 S5 AP0 on a M10 T7 W10 body. Compare to Intercessors for 100 points.
No one will spend 6 CP to do such a thing, but they might if it were just points.
I'm on board with those who say it's a great idea with poor execution. A lot of stratagem bloat spread across so many different books makes armies impenetrable and allows for some awful "gotcha" moments, such as what would happen if you deep strike an expensive blasty unit near some Flamestorm Aggressors with Long Range Marksmen and didn't know about Auspex Scan and how it combines with Flamecraft. The worst offenders being Space Marines contradicts the unwritten design goal of them being an easy to understand and use army for beginners.
DarknessEternal wrote: Too many stratagems took the approach of "thing this unit/army used to have permanent access to now has limited access to."
Inferno Bolts.
Let's say I want to pay 1CP to make the combi-bolters on a rhino Inferno. Used to be meh, but with shooting into combat its a little less so. If I otherwise had to pay perhaps 3 to 4 points each for this what is to stop me from wanting to max slots for transports? 83 points would get me 4/8 S4 AP2 shots and 5 S5 AP0 on a M10 T7 W10 body. Compare to Intercessors for 100 points.
No one will spend 6 CP to do such a thing, but they might if it were just points.
Well, yeah, but then doesn't that just say that 3-4 points is too low a point cost?
I like them conceptually, but in execution I feel like they've just served as another avenue of power creep for the game. Also I don't like how potent they are as force multipliers. It's hard to gauge the power of a unit when there are a slew of strategems that can buff its firepower twice or even three times over.
I often wonder if the game would have been better off with stratagems being universal rather than faction specific. Stuff like insane bravery and counter-offensive are powerful tactical tools but don't break the game.
Tycho wrote: Some interesting points made in this thread. One of the more interesting ones for me is the point that they can provide an opportunity for counter-play within the IGOUGO system, so I think that's a solid point in their favor.
Maybe the IGOUGO system is the problem once again here.
Well, yeah, but then doesn't that just say that 3-4 points is too low a point cost?
Yes, but even if they were 10 points each they'd be potentially worth it , which means you need a separate entry for an ICB on vehicles, but maybe only for Rhinos as other vehicles pay a lot so punishing them for a single ICB doesn't seem right. It becomes a whole separate balance point.
Perhaps the whole idea of that list is silly, but you can't ignore the effect.
Daedalus81 wrote: Yes, but even if they were 10 points each they'd be potentially worth it
I don't mean to be pedantic here, but isn't "potentially worth it" pretty much exactly where you'd want an upgrade to be?
As opposed to 'always worth it' or 'never worth it'.
Eh, I only say potentially, because there's a fine line between usable and not and there's more to it than just looking at a single unit and it is a debate I didn't want to drag out into minutia based on a hypothetical.
There's good and bad.
There shouldn't be any fight/shoot twice/on death abilities especially from strats where they aren't even factored into the unit cost.
Like codices a lot of the problems come from bad balance, both internal and external. Take the ynarri strat "whispering secrets" 2 cp to minus 2 from the leadership of a single enemy unit within 1" of a ynarri unit, or chapter master for 2cp or flyin' 'eadbut for 1 cp. Some strats are almost never used, some are spammed, that shows there are big issues.
Hopefully the new codices will get the balance better, the concept is great, the execution much less so.
Daedalus81 wrote: Yes, but even if they were 10 points each they'd be potentially worth it
I don't mean to be pedantic here, but isn't "potentially worth it" pretty much exactly where you'd want an upgrade to be?
As opposed to 'always worth it' or 'never worth it'.
Eh, I only say potentially, because there's a fine line between usable and not and there's more to it than just looking at a single unit and it is a debate I didn't want to drag out into minutia based on a hypothetical.
Daedalus81 wrote: Yes, but even if they were 10 points each they'd be potentially worth it
I don't mean to be pedantic here, but isn't "potentially worth it" pretty much exactly where you'd want an upgrade to be?
As opposed to 'always worth it' or 'never worth it'.
Eh, I only say potentially, because there's a fine line between usable and not and there's more to it than just looking at a single unit and it is a debate I didn't want to drag out into minutia based on a hypothetical.
Broadly, then, and so I understand the argument, you are stating that there exists useful stratagems that apply to a specific unit or weapon that are better balanced as stratagems rather than as an upgrade for a points cost?
Broadly, then, and so I understand the argument, you are stating that there exists useful stratagems that apply to a specific unit or weapon that are better balanced as stratagems rather than as an upgrade for a points cost?
Yes, but I don't think it is universal. It was also just a particular point I focused on. CP and points are both susceptible to 'getting it wrong'.
My overall impressions of stratagems are positive even despite wombo combo. I might find myself using warptime to bring 3 casters together to let me drop a gateway with an extra +2 to take advantage of my opponent's bad positioning. Or being able to infiltrate Rubrics, which lets me build a list that doesn't require Nurglings. And I need to actively manage that resource during the game in anticipation of future needs based on a developing battlefield.
Daedalus81 wrote: Yes, but even if they were 10 points each they'd be potentially worth it
I don't mean to be pedantic here, but isn't "potentially worth it" pretty much exactly where you'd want an upgrade to be?
As opposed to 'always worth it' or 'never worth it'.
Eh, I only say potentially, because there's a fine line between usable and not and there's more to it than just looking at a single unit and it is a debate I didn't want to drag out into minutia based on a hypothetical.
Broadly, then, and so I understand the argument, you are stating that there exists useful stratagems that apply to a specific unit or weapon that are better balanced as stratagems rather than as an upgrade for a points cost?
I would say so. I remember the older editions were you had lots of upgrades that were rather situational like EMP grenades with my Tau. They increased the cost of FW by 30% with the original codex. Were they worth it? Sometimes they were useless other times they were great. How do you properly pt cost something like that? Now the EMP grenade is just a strat which is fine. If I need it I can spend the CP, if not I can just spend the CP on something else.
I think strats that are situational are fine. Things like the fight on death, or fall back and shoot, or reserve a unit, etc. are fine as strats.
Voted worse, for most of the reasons explained above. However, my biggest frustration lies in the "Create stratagem to sell units" that seems to be part of the new attempt to hide the blatant power creep.
Like virtually everything GW does, I love the concept behind stratagems, but not their ham-fisted execution.
I think strats that allow you to do interesting things, or add unique options to units (like the Red Corsair reinforcement one) are good.
I think strats that are just:
1. A special rule the unit should have by default. 2. Just allow more re-rolls. 3. Change units into something else (Chapter Master, Vet Intercessors, etc.)
... are terrible.
All that said, my biggest problem with strats was actually CP generation. Tying them to the Force Org Chart (and thereby making the FOC meaningless by allowing you to take endless alternate FOCs that give you the slots you want, meaning that you can technically take whatever you want, defeating the purpose of an FOC in the first place) was a terrible idea. Absolutely awful. I am extremely happy that this is a thing of the past.
It’s a good idea, with the usual GW not really well implemented.
There are other parts of the game that I think need overhauls and these have end up being a sell cards and books mechanic than a good part of the game.
With apologies, I'm never played using the current system of stratagems. Our rules use stratagems more akin to the 1st Apocalypse book (4th Ed?). Instead of Command Points, we use allotted Re-rolls (D4 + an army's strategy rating) to purchase stratagems, items from a universal armory when available, or a few other pregame abilities. Stratagems are purchased for a cost (in points or re-rolls which we rate = 20 pts) where available in our scenarios and are usually placed within a side's deployment zone and affect a single unit within 3" of an appropriate marker. For example a unit within 3" can re-roll To Hit (ammo store). If a transport is also purchased most stratagems can be made mobile for double their cost but then may be destroyed along with that transport.
Armory items are available in a scenario, depending somewhat on if it's an asymmetrical point total and includes costs for various field works (razorwire, anti-tank traps, etc.) or offensive assets (smoke grenades, preliminary bombardment, etc.). Some may grant abilities to a unit that normally would not have such a capability, like rapid insertion which allows a unit to deep strike but for an additional 25% cost to that unit.
Other abilities include adding or subtracting units after deployment, changing the position of a single unit after deployment, etc. Re-rolls also affect reserves rolls (yes, we still do that) and can hamper enemy reserve rolls.
In our games we have found that our stratagems when used properly can be very strong, but they are seldom overwhelming since they have an inherent cost. As others have said, the concept of stratagems is solid but Games Workshop often falters when it comes to execution.
Other posters have already pointed out the main issues.
The core 2 1/2 pages of (24) USRs in the main 5th ed rulebook that applied to all factions equally was the best clearest and simplest approach, without overburdensome bloating. additionally units had specific built in special rules/abilities that made them unique for their role on the battlefield.
I should not loose that when i run out of CP. as if my genestealers suddenly forgot how to outflank or scout.
If i wanted to play magic the gathering i would be, which is why i went back to playing 40K when it was still 40K via 5th edition + house rules.
To me 8th edition and 9th edition are no longer normal scale 40K games even if i do use index 8th for epic scale where it still works well.
Good concept that was OKish in the beginning and quickly spiraled out of control and significantly degraded the game. It's not right when stratagems make or break entire codexes.
Being able to instantly double your units firepower for free, or make a unit invulnerable, is simply not fun or engaging to play with or against, and it's an absolute nightmare for unit balance.
Tycho wrote: Some interesting points made in this thread. One of the more interesting ones for me is the point that they can provide an opportunity for counter-play within the IGOUGO system, so I think that's a solid point in their favor.
How would you all feel if we did this:
1. Everyone has access to the same core strats in the BRB 2. Strats that currently should just be unit abilities get removed so that the relevant units can just have the ability again
3. You have x number of strategem slots and the strats you want to use in the game must be selected pre-game
IDK - maybe step 3 doesn't work, but I do feel like most competitive players kind of already do that, and for the more casual games it would cut down on the players of certain books endlessly paging through their codexes to "see if they have something for that" ...
redboi wrote: Being able to instantly double your units firepower for free, or make a unit invulnerable, is simply not fun or engaging to play with or against, and it's an absolute nightmare for unit balance.
It would be interesting to see which model/unit can be multiplied up the most through stratagems, traits, and other unpointed bonuses (relics, warlord, personal psychic powers, etc - but not other units) as compared to its basic performance against the same target - vs T4 3+ or some other common value.
